Glacial and periglacial geo-morphosites in the upper basin of Ialomiţa river (Bucegi Massif, Romania)

George Murătoreanu,Mădălina Nicoleta Frînculeasa ,Ovidiu Murărescu

doi:10.4316/georeview.2012.21.1.62

George Murătoreanu, Mădălina Nicoleta Frînculeasa + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.4316/georeview.2012.21.1.62

Copy DOI

Abstract

The analysis of geo-morphosites as a method used to appreciate the value of geomorphological sites is one of the most accurate methods one can use, as it relies on their comparison and on their integration into a series of patterns that largely eliminate subjectivism and errors. There are several approaches in the evaluation of geo-morphosites, known by the name of those who initiated them (E. Reynard, J. P. Pralong etc.) and they can be applied as such or can be adapted according to the specific features of the region that the geo-morphosites belong to, as well as according to the purpose of their analysis (scientific, touristic, economic etc.). In the present study, we have tried to identify the sites with a glacial and periglacial genesis of a scientific, economic and tourist interest from the upper basin of Ialomiţa River, using the Pralong method. The application of the evaluation criteria (scenic, scientific, cultural and economic) have allowed us to obtain global values for the geo-morphosites in the area under analysis, which later on could be used in the framework of the Bucegi Massif and then could be compared to others from the Romanian Carpathians (Ciucaş, Ceahlău etc.)

Highlights

Geo-morphosites represent forms of relief or geomorphological processes that have acquired an esthetic, scientific, cultural, historical or economic value in time, due to human perception (Panizza, 2001, Piacente, 1993, as quoted by Pralong, 2005)
A series of terms have been so far used to designate the components of the geomorphological patrimony (Reynard, 2007): geomorphological values (Panizza, Piacente, 1993); geomorphological estate (Carton et al, 1994); geomorphological sites (Hooke, 1994); geomorphological geotops (Grandgirard, 1997, 1999); sites of geomorphological interest (Rivas et al, 1997); geo-morphosites (Panizza, 2001)
In the specialized literature, when evaluating geo-morphosites, one can distinguish between two main assessment methods: A first method is to evaluate the global value of the geo-morphosites (The IGUL method – initiated by the Geographic Institute of the University of Lausanne - Switzerland), which involves

Summary

Introduction

Geo-morphosites represent forms of relief or geomorphological processes that have acquired an esthetic, scientific, cultural, historical or economic value in time, due to human perception (Panizza, 2001, Piacente, 1993, as quoted by Pralong, 2005). A series of terms have been so far used to designate the components of the geomorphological patrimony (Reynard, 2007): geomorphological values (Panizza, Piacente, 1993); geomorphological estate (Carton et al, 1994); geomorphological sites (Hooke, 1994); geomorphological geotops (Grandgirard, 1997, 1999); sites of geomorphological interest (Rivas et al, 1997); geo-morphosites (Panizza, 2001). Szepesi (2007) for the geomorphological geotops of the Iezer Mountains, which he calls “obiective geomorfologice” (“geomorphological sites”). Their evaluation was carried out relying on two types of criteria: factors (integrity, specificity, exemplarity – representativeness, rarity, paleogeographic value, sites of special interest) and indicators (dimension, geometric configuration of the forms of relief, constitution, age, geo-diversity, number of forms, their associations, their distribution, context, environment, morphogenetic activity, their function etc.). Dobre (2009), the latter with reference to the geomorphosites from the Bucegi and Ceahlău Mountains

Area under analysis

Methods

Şaua Strunga

Results

Conclusions